I

{-:.:..;

REF ID:A66911

Codel'ellCe oa 1114octrlaaU.oa c/s S~ 7 hT•'ber la

1. A\\aGtae4 ta a ft.J'b1Jt.Ua aacoaat of a coatennce c:oamow. 'b7 SJ.C coacem-.lllc the uoen1'7 for rniw of ladoc\11.aat.loa pncel'llft8 aad for a r991sloa of USCD "16· flala coafenac• we.a hel.4 prior to \be ---.--t eouentac OU' clw.lpcl ata'1u; laace, 80De of 1.\ will luln ao Mar1q a7 lof.a&er. Jtovewr, then le aater!al hen *1cJ:a ahoa.14 be ooaaW.d'84 lt7 Capt.la Ooo4v1a MA COlOAel C•pnll. 1 MT•• tllenfora, ••\ a cow of \llia coneepoM.eaee k tbea.

a. !b.e coateru.ce w.a called to coaa14el't

... 'De nee4 tor ho \nea ot 1ndoctrlati\10A 1a AJ'SA.

(1) A ucu.rlt.7 brief!ae (1n1'1al 1Atloctriaat1oa) 8D4 oath -11&ltil1'7 \o lU\11c LA.v 513, Ot".\A of aeeu.ri\7, e\c.

(2) CUCDlf bad.oc,rias,lon aa4 oe\h for Hle.oted 1A41T1t!uela - ta accordallce vUla the o&th preacJi.becl "b7 USCIB '6.

11. !he ued tor a rn1a1oa ot l1SO:lD #6c

(l) 4fo 1.aclucia &IJ'SA. ia 1 '8 proper poai'-l.oa ae a aeaber J.ib•D.C7 of tJ.i~lB lach incl:uioa would &1•• l>lll men clea.rq deliaea\ed m\hor1'1 on cl6Uaai:e and iadoc\rlaa.Uoa. a\,en).

'(2) !o apell ou• a uf1A1\1oa ot v.:·Mlft lJldoc\ria.'?.\loa th&' ia · clefla.1\elJ' ra

• _., J •

REF ID:A66911

suwm

to o/s Cfphnpp1 OA Ig49gtrtn•Hg

.t-~ ? lowaber 53 Ooame' llo. 1 cou4.

a. Ia Use nia&J'J, ~. •erb&Ua accoua' .b.erevitlL gl'Te• the tollovlac 1a-foma'1oaa

a.. oaiS 1Aclic1a\es a requ.1tw1ea\ the.\ &11 Q1JS penoael be 1a4oo\r1nete4 . for COHift.

lt. I/» 14410'1"•• 1a tile1r op1a1ea U:lat ftJ':f tev ot ov people aee4 izMloctriAAtlon in. the •••• of Jmowledp \b.a\ ve appl.7 •cenala metaoa• tor the aolu\ioa ii&. Ule apeolflc tore1p •79'••' or 'tb&' certei.la htl\ll\1 an d.erived. ther.tzom•. ·

o. P/P ·-elieYea ve coah.ae •nee6-to-Jmow• wUb 81ncloa\11.Aa$1oa•. That 1.acloctrin&•ioa ia aa elernenta17 1Aat"2.c\1oa \ha' ie la,er expoa4ed. on a •need.-to-know• b&s1a. (!hia 4oee not &&I'•• wUh G-2' • iAterpre,a.\1011. ba.t does apee vi \h OUl" C\U'nllt pnaed.UZea).

d.. C/S"IJ; ate.tea the opinion \Ga' there a11ould 'be no 't'Rr1at1oa in. the •level of cl~anca• of our people, 'bu' \hb.\ ve17 few people 1D. c/s?J: haft 07 coAtac' or &aia &11¥.lm.ovleclp of COMI:H'!.

e. LCG impliea no need tor COMM l.ndoc,rins:Uon except en 'op leTal 1n. the.\ D1v1a1on.

t. CCMM believes ths.t 9. ot Ua Division ahou.14 receive 1Ull COMI!l'f ' 1ad.oetr1Aa '1on.

g. OOMI' cauu.r• thA.t a reT1a1on ot OSCIB f5 ia requ1re4 (t1.a a.o nll who wera preaen\ at thla aeetia&).

h. With the elt0ep•1oa of i» COlllltend.an,, U 1e dov.bttal if ta7 ot the Al"SA School SWt end facv.1~7 aeed f\111 1Jldootrlu'1oa. '!hare are por\iODll Of Ula .AG a4 Pm, (Yer,, small poupa) th.a\ neecl \hia S.nd.oc\rina\1011.

4. 1\ 1a recoaiaended. \hat ae a pan of ov mrna\ ~· la a\atua, theM maUera be 1aclu4ed. ill the •iudl' of Captain Oood.wia•1 OOlllld\tee.

·Iacla !:naaorip' of SJC Xae'in& • 11 Oc\

OCI 00111 t.0G OCIOl.-r-_? coa Pl' ~ Oqt. Qoo4vla la AG 07SJJJ J/D OPll

:LJSI.13 I. \f!MAI ColoZ'181, Ar•1lle17

'f

- -- - -- --------

-0 AFSA/lS Oct. 1952

COlfti'fl'1!:lft'IA» - Secur1t7 Information

TRANSCRIPT OF SECURITY CONTROL DIVISION MEETING

Date: lS October 19S2

Time:

Place:

Present:

1300 - 1420

Room 19232

col. L. H. Wpari

Capt. J. s. Harper Col. J.E. Condron

Dr. S. Kull back Lt. Col. G. S. SteYenaorl

Mr .. H. L11 Clark

Mr. Paul left

Lt.. F. T. Johnson

Lt. Col. R~ H. Borton Maj. R. P. Goolsb1 .

Lt. Col •. J. W. Powers

Lt. Col.· R •. HUme Maj. w. w. Wilson capt. J. H. Fortune, jr. Lt. Col. M. A. Marshall

Lt. Col. s. L. Patterson Maj~ D. K. Corcoran

Representing ·

SEC, Chairman

OPNS OPNS

R/D R/D

C/SEC

COMP

AG.

'p/p P/P

COMM

SEC SEC

PERS

LOG

SCH SCH

CONFiDENTI:z\L

. 6 ONPIDEN'i'Il'1L

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -COL. WYMAN: The arrangements for the Conference Room limit us to one hour•s time. Therefore, we·will start the con-ference now without waiting for Capt. Harper and I will tl7

.,

to be as brief as possible. This conference was precipitated · as a result of certain contacts I have had with G-2, Army, in matters of obtaining clearances for COMINT tor certain of their people to have access to ft.FSA spaces and informa-tion, I find that G-2 has a higher selection standard than USC!B .S~ our gu.ide, requires. Whereas as USC'IB 5 states "should be" and authorizes waivers of certain standards because of operational need, G-2 uses the word 11 must" and permits no waivers. There are five of these standards. They involve matters pertaining to foreign relatives, membership in subversive organizations, character, loyalty and discretion, etc. Since all of these are "musts" for G-2, when we ask them for clearance for special intelli-gence on a particular individual we have a hard time. G-2 will not indoctrinate unless the standards are met . ' and the complete investigation has been completed.

Originally· when AFSA was formed it was established that aJl:..positio-ms. in·AFSA were sensitive positions and that for assignment to or employment in any of its positions a complete COMINT clearance (clearance and indoctrination) was required. · · ..

There has been a great deal of confusion as to what con~ stitutes basic clearance requirements. For our purposes we have held t~t SR 380-160-10 of the Army' is to all intents· and PU!:PO&es the same requirement as that.prescribed by · ·

.USCIB 5. 'For the Navy th~s regulation is RIP 4$(B) and for the Air Force, Registered Air Force Contr9l Docllll1ent·No. 2-652i. The Air Force terms this a cryptographic clearance •

. The Army represented by ASA, as opposed to G-2, does the same thing but refers to it, plus indoctrination, as a · cryptologic clearance.· The Navy•s clearance in terms of· ·the secretar7 of Defense Directive.of 5 June 19S2 is the same requirement. G-2, Artrr1 1 places their req:i.irement at a higher selective and investigative level.

l have stated to the Director and have written in our security Manual that our clearance standards are the mini-mum directed by USCIB S, that indoctrination will be ad-m1:nistered on a "need to know" basis, and the Director shall exercise his right to waive certain select~on

2

CONFIDENTIAL

0 Olf.PI DEN'fI AL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -

standards in accordance with operational need. My problem is mainly concerned with indoctrination, the Director's authority to determine "need to know", and the type of in-doctrination which is meant by USCIB 5 in its recµirement that they be notified. annually of all persons "cleared far COMINT". USCIB 5 ~tates that· for each of the member agencies and departments the head of the service concerned shall determine the "need to know" !'.or its personnel, that per-sonnel in the Department of De.fense outside the member agencies and departments shall have their "need to know" determined by the secretary of Defense, that all contractual p~ople, technical consultants,·etc., employed by a Service shall have their "need to know" determined by the head of that service, and that for all others who must have access to COMINT only USCIB can determine the 11 need to know".

AFSA was form~d after USCIB 5 WRS written. We contend 'that only the Director can determine the "ne9d to know" of per-sons associated witq or employed by AFSA. Because of this we have problems. We feel that the cryptographic clea:rance, as noted above, is required but that lor many people coming into AFSA, indoctrination 1.n the sense of USCIB .5 is not required. we are required many times to establish the clearance status of so and so in order tha.t he may inter-.view somel:)ody in "R&D", for example, with no necessity· for ·discussing COMINT and with no necessity for acce~s to AFSA information. On the other· hand, we of ten need to provide · , access for someone in G-2 in a space where complete indoc-trination is not nece.ssary but where a certain amount is.

In this case because we are a COMINT Agency we have asked ·G-2 for clearance for special intelligenc·e. · They retain the right to indoctrinate and insist on giving full in-doctrination-"far more information than we consider necessary. ·It is a problem to us both in record keeping and in placing clearance requirements on the Services. Because of the difference in selection and clearance d: G-2, as opposed to ASA, G-2 is a bit alarmed at the number of Army personnel.who are submitted as being cleared for COMINT.

I feel that a rewrite of lJSCIB 5 is necessary. Where the Director has authority delegated to him for the cle~rance

3

CONFIDENTIAL

-·

-·

G ON.PI D.8N'f IAL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - -and indoctrination of his own civilian employees, he does not have it for roilitary personnel and contractor personnel who are associated with his Agency via the Services. we have no question about the Services' authority· to clear people. We do question anyone's authority to determine the "need to lmow" of cleared people sent for assignment to AFSA or employed on a contractual basis. Again if we were to apply G-2' s high standards,_ we would not have sufficient employees or assignees to carry out our operation.

Perhaps the matter is.one of terminologJ". we cannot feel that USCIB is interested in the number of employees we have per se •. we do feel that they are interested in the number who have been indoctrinated for COMINT. [n other words, we have two levels of indoctrination--one an initial saourity indoctrination or briefing, followed by such further indoc-trination as may be required by the "need to lmow" with the complete indoctrination .. being that termed by USCIB as cleared for COMINT. ~n1ere the break.is between this ultimate indoc~rination end what goes before I frankly do not lmow. I estimated with the Director the other day that perhaps 1,500 AFSA personnel could be considered indoctrinated in this latter fashion. one or the reasons for this conference today is to find rout from you people how many of your per-sonnel might be considered indoctrinated to this high ·level.

In the last two paragraphs. of USCIB S it states that all "those individuals who are involved in the. various parts of the production or COMINT need not be cleared in accordance with the same standards as those who handle the product; that they need not be indoctrinated but that those who have a complete knowledge of our business must be recorded and reported. Should we have two definite indoctrinationsf I do not mean two standards of clearance because clearance merely establishes eligibility for indoctrination. Should we try to maintain in my Division a list of those individuals who have been indoctrinated "all the way", as opposed to those who have received only partial indoctrinationf

capt. Harper entered the meeting at l:lS. apologized for not holding up the meeting cussed the foregoing for his info!"Il'!ation. continued.

4

Col. l,\ryman and briefly dis-Col. Wyman

CONFIDENTIAL

(

'

--w'JN merm~J~ .&. .... ....__ ... , - --

CON FI DEH'i'IJ,L

SUBJ: Transcr1.pt of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oot. - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -COL. WYMAN: The oath our people sign upon indoctrination is not eJC:actly the COMINT oath prescribed by USCIB 5. we do not include that portion which states that personnel leaving the COMINT .Activity engage not to reveal the source of COMINT, although this pRrticular point might be con-sider0d covered under their public Law 513 responsibility. Per.haps we should have an oath, separate snd distinct for use in the indoctrin:itlon and debriefing of personnel who have knowledge of th~ wholo COMINT Activity. A great many people in COMSEC are in no way connected with COMINT; our cerd punch operators, for example, and certain low-level employees are not connected with any but their particular part of the COMINT Activity; the Staff of the AFSA School

__ hinra no knowledge; and many others. They have no "need to mown of the final• productJ how it is hand.led, where it goes, or· what it is for.

I would like to come .UP with recommendations as to whether we can do somet'hing about es tabl1.shing the position of AFSA in USCIB, the Director•s authority, and a clear delineation of the mem ing of indoctrine.tiori. Now that you., Capt. Harper, are here, I would like to mention a revision in the Agree1n&nt which states that only those people who handle · Category I·COMINT matters re~ire indoctrination f~r COM~NT. in the spirit of USCIB S. I would like t9 hear comments in order from 02, OJ, 04, 12, and oth~r Sta~f Divisions as to how they feel about their own people.

CAPT. HARPER: It is much better from our s·t.andpoint where we are all together in the esme office to have everybody indoctrinated. We are not opposed to change because we have thought of it many timns, but it gives us' freedom to transfer people around or to pick them up ·to do specia.l work which we would not have otherwise.

~coL. WYl.u\.N: I would like to bring up this point with regard "to CIA. In' the COMINT __ por_t..1.on of CIA they have their own .s~curity officer who accepts nobody for assignment without evaluating the investigative materla.l him.seif. He accepts for assignment only t~ose people concerning whom there is no doubt in his mind. 'MY point in this matter is that we

CON~IDENTIAL

'·

0 0HF'IDBW:'IAL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct.

report ao many people cleared for COMIMT each year. j'!_! ___ · have 7, OOOCI"Vilian employees and we repor.t them to USCIB as being cleared and indoctrinated for COMINT. I do not believe·this is a true statement. I do not ·believe all of these people can be considered as indoctrinated in the manner contemplated by USCIB S. Even in your own office ·r do not think it is necessary. For example, the other day we were asked to give some instruction in the use of secret ink to certain G-2 personnel. As far as we are concerned,e.11 these persons need have in regard to AFSA 1s a cryptographic clearance with minimum indoctrination concerning the area in which they ere to work. However, to get c·learance for specie.l intellige;nce, according to G-2 1 s requi~ements,they must be indoctrinated 11 all the way". Also they must meat the complete selection standard G-2 has set up. we do not consider this complete indoctrination necessary. ·

CAPT. HARPEg: I don't think that is a good example. I agree in some respects with G-2. We have a lot or visitors who have to come· in here. secret ink is not COMINT, nor is

.our need for certain types of supplies COMINT, so everybod~ coming in doesn't have to be indoctrinated for the same category that you are talk!ng about. I am talking about the employees, the people ~i~o work for and are assigned to 02, They are all cleared. "rJ'e wouldn't have them in the ple.ce if they we~entt q~al~f~e~ and indoctrinated from the securtty standpqint~

COL. WW.AN: Cles.r1:mce is quite different from ind.octrina--~,,_..9!1_ •. ____ _I_.i:n.!'-~~j.on~~:-~r.::.~ ~~~c.~.e.~. ~p.H; m.~~-tE1~ ___ Q..:g.l,.y_:Q~Q.!l'1..!l~ __ t]'lese

individuals must come irito Mr. Feeney•s spaces and.must have access to his laboratory, Their ver1 presence in Feeney 1 s snop gives them access to a certain.amount or information.

1 CAPT. HARPER: It shouldn't be accessible. Feeney can certainly take care or that. COL. WYMAN: They can•t help but see and hear things in the laboratory with so much going on.

CAPT. HARPER: 'All he _has to do is cover it up.

COL. WYMAN: Will not it stop his operation?

6

CONFIDENTIAL

SUBJ: •rrapscript of SEC Div. Mtg·,. - 15 Oct.

CAPT. HARPER: I ca:i.arrange those things. I

COL. CONDRON: .Actually such occur.rences t:•.re rather remote.

CA?T. HARPER: They set all the painters in there.

COL. WYY..AN: Yee:, but the supe1~visors are fore~arned'l

CAPT. HARPER: They have "to be forewarned. I!' visitors come in with an ordinary visitor•s badee ·on they shouldn•t be allowed to walk around.

COL. WYl"'..AN: Perhaps the secret in..~ is· a bad example. What I am trying to say is that these individuals do not need indoctrination beyond their "need· to know".

CAPT. HARPER: It isn• t in accord.a.nee with the "need to know" that they be told all about the organization.

COL. WYMAN: That is ri3ht, but in this case G-2 insists. I can give you a better example.

CAPT. HARPER: Let's get beck to a practical example and not theoretical things. 1·Ja have been talking about AFSA employees. our laborers don•t need to be told all about the Activity. They need to have such indoc trtr..a.tion ar clearance or what-ever you call it, to take an oath not to tell what they overhear throug..~ the walls or open doors, or see on the blackboards in goine; around, etc. It is not ·permitted !'or them to tell. There is no re Rs on why they sh:>uld be told how many intercept stations we have, or about the organiza-tion, and a lot of other thin~s.

COL. WYMAN: But there is a difference in the ~arious levels o!' people we employ. For exa~ple, what about our custodial personnel? There is a certain group of them, about 40, whom we want to have access to co~e into our shops to repair power lines, fix boilers, replace lights, and eight. of these need to have access to go back and forth through security areas simply in the process of cleaning out· tbe toilets on the second and third floors. We need them cleared in order that they can do their work without escort. We have tried our best to get ASA to provide clearances. ASA's

7

CONFIDENTIAL

C 6NP:E DE?N'f I :AL

SUBJ: Transcript ot SEC Div. Mtg. - lS Oct. - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -

stand. is, "We wil~ not clear them becauise they have no •need to know• and we determine the 'need to know• • " We could not agr.ee with them more except that the mere access to·the spaces where they are to conduct their work imposes a "need to know" through their .Proximit7 t·o classtt1ed wo:r.k. we want clearanc·e. ~nl7 to establish eligib1·11ty tq let us indoctrinate sufficiently to safeguard our information •. This t7pe ot indoctrination is what we refer to as an initial seourit1 indoctrinatlon and it amounts to hardly more than a csecurlt7 briefing •. It is not a COMINT indoc .. trination •

. CAPT. HARPER: we see them walking around without escorts. , I

COL. WYMAN: Y~s,.·in the hallwajs but not across the secure .areas between wings. OriginallJ all poa:i tions in AFSA ·were des1.gnated ·as sen.a:Ltive poai tions, not because their work was h1ghl7 classified but because mere p~oximtty to the work ot the Agency·gave personnel access to information which was h1ghlf sensitive. In other w~rds, proxim1t1 to classified information creates a "need. to know" and grai;it1ng such proximitJ to uncleared people or perhaps unindoctrinated

'people promotes the poss~bility·of security violations.

CAPT. HARPER: I.· don~ t ·think it does .. 'I . '

, COL. WYMAN: You ~re re·:f"erripg to the secret ink pers~nnel?

CAPT. HARPER: I don•t agre.e with you on that unless you expect those people to come .over for a course of instruction,

COL. WYMAN: It is a course of instruction and lasts for two or three months. CAPT. HARPER: I thought lt was just one visit. The7 should be cleared. ·

COL, WYMAN: I·. am gla:d you say that. Our problem is that we do not teel we need to req.tire G-Z•s high selection stan~rd tor them and yet G-2 will not indoctrinate unless that high standard.is maintained.

CAPT. HARPER: Tell G~2 to send them· over and we will indoctrinate them.

8

€0NFIDENTIAL

. ..

~~--------------................. ..

. ~ '

OOHPID33M'l'IAL

. SUBJ: Transcript of SEC.Div. Mtg. 15 Oct • , ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . -

·COL. WYMA.N: we can• t indoctrinate them under the USCIB 5 prohibition. ·

MR. NEFF: What is the date of USCIB 5?

COL. ~1.N: In 19~9 before AFSA was formed.

CAPT. HARPER: MY reaction ls that people coming in~o AFSA have to meet our clearance standards and be indoctrinated to the extent that is necessary.

COL. WYMAN: To accomplish that I believe USCIB 5 needs to be rewritten. However, to finish our discussion at this time may I take it that you do not concur that there is need for a '.top-bracket group of people being indoctrinated for COl-1INT in the sen~e of th~ Category I recp. irement under the proposed revision of the Agreement?

CAPT. HARPER; For our own employees, no. I don't think so. That is something which is rather an unwieldy p~ocedure from the standpoint of t~e Operations Office. Security has ·always got to :give away to some extent to the necessity for operations. You can carry it to the point of absurdity ·where we get the most oecurity by not having any papers around, where we get ideal secu.ri ty if'.w~ d0>n"' t send any messages.

COL. WYMAN: Another example of our problem is securing clearances for p·eople to work on the new si·te project.

·Certain peeple must come into AFS~ to see what types of machines we ·use ___ and to settle certain construction requirements. T~e Anderson-Nichols company has some people cleared sufficiently. HQwever, it takes tim~ to secure clearances fo~ special intelligence when the Army cites ·the high standards that they do. we are acting out of order, but in order to get the work in progress, we grant interim clearance on the same basis we_grant ~terim clearances to our own people (NAC and polygrap~)while waiting for the final clearance to come in from the Army. Actually the Director has no authority to ~o this~

~ ·C:APT. HARPER: All they need is a contractor·• s clearance.

9

CONFIDENTIAL

--------------------------------COHPTDBN'fIAL

SilBJ: Tra.nsc ript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct.

COL. WYMAN: Contractor• s clears.nee, yes, but accornplished by the some standards as we recµire of anybody else for the particular type· of c~ntract involved.

DR. KULLBACK: There are two considerations here, that of clearance and of indoctrination. so far as indoctrination :ts concerned, tha.t is essentially what statements shall be made to a cleared individual with respect to the disclosure of COMINT. By co;nxnunications intelligence you mean either certain methods for the solution of specific foreign' systems. or the results derived therefrom. ve~y few' people wrrr neea--to be indoctrinated in that sense.

COL. WYMAN: Under USCIB 5 my impression is that.clearance for COMINT and the report rendered to USCIB concerning the number of people so cleared should include 'only those people who have access to the whole operation and that'that number must be kept to a minimum. That is wrrat is causing the confusion in my mind. I want to know how many people

11n.R&D know all about the production of COMINT, what is done with it, and where it goes.

CAPT. HARPER: Nobody. I don't think there would be any-body in 02 who could fulfill that definition, who knows all about where it goes.

COL. WYMAN: We might say 1,500 people in AFSA altogether?

DR. KULLBACK: I.don't think anybody in 03 knows that. I have never concerned myself with it.

/

CAPT. HARPER: The number of people in 03 who \.0 uld have to know enough· about it to recµ ire full indoctrination would be very few.

DR. K.ULLBACK: In studying the techniques and reading the systems very few people concern themselves with where the ultimate message goes when they translate it, what amount of intelligence it contains, who gets it, or what they do with it. They are not concerned with that. . COL. HORTON: I an not ·sure but that we are confusing the 1ndoctrinat1.on wlth the determination of the "need to know".

10 •

CONFIDENTIAL

G O!WIDEN'!'IAL

SUBJ: Transc1•ipt of s;..;c Div, l1tg. - 15 Oct, ... - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - - -

The indoctrinRtion covers certain general security pre-cautions and the administration of. the oaths prescribed in 'C'SCIB·5. The deteriilination.of t:b.e "need to know" of the various grades of COMINT talces ple.ce continuously asi time goes on. W:l thin C npt. Harper' s sb.op, as al 1 of us know, he n1ay get one particular man and put hin1 on a T/A_ problem of a particular type. He is put on thei•e for that particular assigmi1ent, · He is not given ~'Ii.a complete overall plcture necessarily of COMINT. ·

COL. WYMAN: In .AFSA, he is not.

COL. HORTON: Capt. Harper might take him off this particular assignment and put him on another more classified one.

COL. ·\'rlM..U!: That is progressive indoctrination.

COL. HORTON: No, that is not indoctrination. That is, the determination of the 11 need to know11 and the security pre-caution~ relating thereto; the indoc'b1.nation, ·as such, takes plece at the time that you have him assigned and give him that security oath.

CL"Pr. HARPER: I would say less than three people would fit your (Col. Wyman•s) definition. They are the Director, Admiral Wenger, and myself. Only those three would fit an interpretation.as strict as that. They reay not know every-thing. There is a lot going on that I don't know about. There are other things that I know and that two er three other people know ,about which neither the· Director nor Admiral Wenger know. They know about them, but don•t know the details. I think most of those things will wor~ them-selves out on the "nee·d to know" basis in which we are all pretty well trained~

COL. WYMAN: 'What worries me is the confusion you have and the misunderstandins with the supporting Services. our Arrrry personnel are furnished by ASA. ASA themselves are in agreement with us and send us cleared people in accordance with SR 380-160-10. If there is some point in the case which needs a waiver they inform us what it is and if ·we accept the waiver, we &~t the man; if we donrt, we don1t. As far as they are concerned when they send us a soldier or an officer as cleared it is up to us to conduct the indoctrinatlon. They s i..'11.ply place the !nan•.s name on the

CONFl1DENTIAL

•.

e elfti'i llE!ft' IAfJ

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - ..I" .. - -----------

special intelligence list a·nd notify G-2. Because of their high standards G-2 is somewhat alarmed at the large number of Army personnel that ft.SA reports to them as certified for COMINT. From our own standpoint I believe G-2 is correct and I do not believe all these people are indoctrinated for COMINT in the spirit of USCIB·5. . ·

DR. KULLBACK: There is a difference in the point of view. G-2 thinks in terms of indoctrinat:ton or clearance for COMINT in terms.of the receiver of the product, the consumer, and those who may take action on these things. · In AFS~ they go through appropriate clearance procedures end are put to work on the various phases of the producing activity. They don•t have to lalow everything. They are not concerned with the product its elf. ·

CAPT. HARPER: The people who know as much of the end-product in 02 as ~hose in G-2 are comparatively few. There may be three or foul" dozen. I· ~h:tr..~!!: the consumers get the whole. works. we don•t. We dotr~ like them to have the whole works.

COL. WYMAN: What our autho?"ity is in dealing with the three services ought to· be clar~fied ror us. AS it is, we are constantly in difficulties over Service requirements. For example, none of our Army civilian personnel are certified

· to_j'AG; should we certify them to TAG as cleared for special ·-·-1:nt~1ii8erice' "n--i "might be" expected to complain:-·-----·--

MR. NEJ:i'F: The military 3et certified for COMINT.

COL. WYMAN: That is cryptogr&~~ic certification.

MR. NEFF: That is different. They are not certified for COMINT. · Cryptographic certification is only one step toward certification for COMINT. You have to indoctrinate them~for certification for COMINT for a cryptologic clearance.

COL. WYMAN: ASA' s stand :1s that when they send mill tary persormel to us they know we will indoctrinate them and they certify our people· to the Army as indoctrinated for COMINT. We have never.certified our civilians to anybody. we are the only office of record. The only time we furnish information to anyone is when we notify USCIB each year th~t we have appro;ximately so many employees cleared for COMINT.

. 12

CONFIDENTIAL

•. 0 O?W If)Efl 'f !AL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 1.5 Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - -·-COL. HORTON: We must continue to report the indoctrineee. It doesn't make an iota of difference. If a man is indoc-trinated and has signed Ghe oath, whether or. not he ever· sees or ever hears about a piece of COM!NT or cryptographic eqi.ipment, he must be reported to che Board.

COL. WYMAN: Do you mean the GS-2 Card punch operators?

COL. HORTON: If he has beoSn indoctrinated and h.a.s taken the oath, he roust be included in the totel.· ·

C.APT. H/l.RPER: I may be confused by your deflnition of in-doctrination. I have thought of 1·t as this. They read the appropriate laws and instructions an.d take the oath not to reveal anything they may know. From the security standpoint that finishes it.

COL. W:lMAN: AS far as we are concerned, we call that a .security indoctri11atio11. AS/i. calls that a security briefing. The indoctrinat.1.on ls done in accordance with the 11 need to lmow•t.

CAPP'. HARPER: Perhaps we B1 oulC. get the 'terms· straightened out before we talk with them.

COL. WYt-!AN: I want to get something from us that we ~11· and t'l6rey will ~gree to.

CAPT:.. rIJ'.RPER: When we say "indoctrination", in our ·sense that·means a security briefing. I don't want every punch operator to know the whole business.

·cot. WYMAN: They a.re not 1ndoc ·trinated then .• ·CAPT. HARPER: In the strict sense of the word,.. I agree with you. We will have to go to Webster on it.

COL. WYMAN: I would like to hear from Olj. on this thing~

=MR. CLARK: There is the sa.."IJ.e confusion in my mind that there ls in some of the other peoples• minds. Let me give you an example and ask questions on it.- From time to time, on the basis of' what is considered by AFSA-02 as a 11:nee-d for me :-po know" 1 I have received certain codeword material. During

']J

CONFIDENTIAL

GOPWIDSN'i'IAL

SUBJ·: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - ·- - - - - -

the pest years I have raised this quest5.on. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, unless i\ is in ~he regular oath thRt I took when I entered this place and retook recently, been specifically indoctrinated for COMINT in the same way that I have been specifically indoctrinated for COSMIC. Yet I get the material which comes to me through Top Secret··./ handling and it comes to me for my information._ Am I supposed to have that?

COL. WYMAN: In the Security Monual that we are publishing now we say that our concept of clearance does not conA·titute knowledge of classified material. It simply constitutes eligibility for access to classified information.

CAPT. HARPER: In accordance with the "need to know".

MR. CLARK: Then in 02 I am elie;ible and have the "need to know"?

COL. WYMAN: You are.

MR. CL.ARK: Who determines that I have the "need to know" it 'l That ~s what Frank Rowlett determined. Therefore, I could have it. It has always struclc me as being funny. It seems to me that I should. sign something which would be applicable to special intelligence to protect it forevermore~

COL. WYMAN: From what appea~s in the Security Manual you will see that the matter of clearance and indoctPination is a sore subject. I have stated AFS.A.'s position as I see it, the position that currently exists. I am bumping into these things with the Services all the time and I want to get agreement among ue. To rr.y mind it is up to "the Director to determine what indoctrination his people get. we do not· want to :Indoctrinate all people "all t.b.e way".

CAPI". HARPER: That would be failure on our part to maintain security.

COL. WYMAN: We feel that·USCIB 5 must be rewritten.

MR. CLARK: I have another canm.ent about 04. As for the clearance standards which are required for our people, I think it is perfectly ·desirable that all the personnel in AFSA be subjected to the eame criteria and have the same kind of investigation performed on them, that we have a coI11L~on set of rules and regulations for determining a personrseliglbility to be cleared.

CONFfDENTIAL

'··

. '

. · . . ·

. . .

. , GONF'IDHH'fIAlJ

SUBJ~ .Transcript of SEC. J?iv. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - ~·~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -COL. WYMAW: To the best of ·my knowledge end belief this is the situation. The NaV1, in their investigation, waives ce~tain things that we dont.t waive. We accept their people and we know normall7 'Whf waivers have been granted. It Navy personnel are separ.ated.from. AFSA and want to be hired as civ1l~ans, we don•.t· take them unless the7 meet our re.-

. quirements. we rarel7 s.ee th~ir records. The Air Poree clearances are base~_on simil~r r$gulat1ons to those or the Arm.7.

MR. CLARK: Are JOU' aware that under lTSCIB s· this rear the Secretary of Def'en~e haa promulgated for all three·services a joint polic7 for crJPtographic clearance? ·

• ' I •

COL. WYMAN: 'rh.at :l:ri ~ight. ·· ·

MR. CLARK:. we· now·.have· a ·c~6:ri agreement on stan~d criteria on investi~ations? ·

. -' I I•

COL. W!MAlh We hope· ·we d~. we want to get agreement on · how that should be done. None o~ the Services use the

·term. ''cr7ptolog:lo" except the AI'l.f11. That reall7 amounts to Cl'J'ptograph1o as des1gnate~ in the JUne S revised seoDef' . memora~dum.· -Our baa~s ~or .1n~ootr.;1.nat1on is that. ..

. I

MR.· CLARK: M~ se~ond point is similar to Dr. Kullback•s. As.far aa the majorit7 ot people in 04 are co~cerned, the7· have no.contact with the .actual products of·COMINT nor with the source from which ·that·intormation comes. In general, the7 are aware ·~hat 02 is engaged in COMINT activities. The details the7 need not know and do not know. There are ·some exceptions. The. people in 41,.doing anal7aia and 'evaluation, work rather closely with 02 and h~ve a certain knowledge o~ that.part of the work. The majorit7 ot the people in.04 do not have contact with COMINT or gain anJ lmowledg"e . ot C OMINT. · ·

COL. WYMAN:· B~w many people in 7our Division require complete indoc~rinati~~-

COL. MARSHALL· (LOG): As· 7ou.brought out, the ·people at ·th~ warehouae know ver1 little or what goes on except ~hat

1.5 . CONFIDENTIAL

....... - . ~ .. · ·- .

GGN.F'IDBffl'IAL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. M~g. - 1$ Oct. - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -they find out from the ·supplies t'l:iey a~e handling. At the ·· same time in deel. ing with. supplies they might have occasion to enter some of the areas that might be classified higher than the warehouse.

·coL. POWERS (COMM): I don't know personally~ Quite a large -ti per cent of codeword mF..1.terial a:>m.es through our. place. N:inety-

five per cent ot our people will see it. That is the wa1 . they get the information. At some time .or other. they .will =· .:

...

see the resulting product wh~n-it goes-out.

MR .• NEFF: I have· saneth1ng to sq. I think this is a rather complex problem for us this afternoon. I. think it would be better to have you come around and talk wi·th us personal11· and give us a·~opy of the proposed raper that we could.stud.7 for a while. I have had considerable experience ~nd have some ideas of my own on all of the subjects you have raised.

·I was active at one time in both the preparation and review pf the criteria that USCIB has prepared. I practically · wrote personallJ the Arm.1 alee.ranee regulation.. we certa1nlj' ·· can•t solve here any· of the points you raised this afternoon. They ·are much bigg.er. I think we are going to have to take them o~e by one.

COL·. WY:MAN: Chapte~ 3 of the· security Manual expls.1n8 verJ ' ·· clea-rl7,, I think,. just about what we have arrived at i;hia afternoon. I foresee a blast from the Services, but I feel it· 1s wha.t we ought to stick to .•. I would ~ike .your support on th.is thing, if -JOU agree, If you ddn• t, I want to know where you dise.g~ee. Th~ Manual will be aroun~ shQrtlJ. . we }:lave coordine.tad it"completel1 :with 12. It represents much of what we have said this &:fternoon· •. I· believe that it-is entirely in line with the spirit of USCIB but i· anticipate trouble when it hits the Services.

CAPT. HARPER: You better get it around as filOOn as you can.

COL. WYMAN: I·t will- be out very soon and you will have it as an AFSA document .•

CAPT. HARPER: I imagine that as an official AFSA document I am sure to agree with it if it is along the lines we have been talking a tout. However, I want to be sure that I agre~ with it before it is published •

16

CONFIDENTIAL

,·•·

' '

....

.· . : .

. ' , •', I

.... .. JI

"':··

.. .. .. ..

.•

.·

SO!fF'IDBN'fIAfi

SUBJ: Transcr~.pt ·or SEC Div. Mtg •. - l$ Oct. • 'i ' •• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------COL •. WIMAN: However, we have tried for two and a half 7ears to ~et somethiJ1,g. down on paper. A great amount or time . would be involve~ in coordinating it through every Office · and staff Division. Your own chapter on COMINT is going· in ~xactly as 1ou prepared it. on .the.personnel sec"Urity pro-cedures we have coo~dinated those thoroughly with Col. Borton•s off.ice, I~. Douglas and Mr. Murphy went over it with a fine-to'othed comb. It will· make clarification of the USCI'B S paper necessary. · 1 . '

I

MR. NEFF: only. ·a directive from highe·r authority can clarify . it and improve ·upon it in due cour~e. At the present time you are stuo~ with .it and have to operate under it a9oordingly.

COL. WYMAN: The Director is completely in·accord with the idea that he should be the only one to determine the "need to know" for people ~ithin AFSA. Yet USCIB S states t~at .only Service and m·ember people can determine that "need to know".

MR. NEFF: . I don• t i'nterpret the USCIB statement that wa-r · at a11·. . 1

· COL. WYMAN: It is stated in the second paragraph.

CAPT. HARPER: . I wa~ a membe~ of USCICC which was a. sub-board of USCIB and which worked up this originally be.fore it.was revised as a USCIB paper back in' about 1947 or 1948. ·We · determined the- "need to know" for the service.a for the real consumers. :It was not the people who worked in CSAW or in the producing Bureaus but it was for the consumers. It · ·. was an effort to prev.ent the Chief o-f ASA from saying, · . "Well now, Mr. Jonas of the Navy doesn't ineed to lm.ow• this." CIA or the state Department couldn't say tha~.Mr. Jones doesn't "need to know". The Navy Department is the ' one who ss1s that Mr, Jones has·the "need to know". It has nothing to do with the producer.

·COL. WIMAN: Yet· the Air Force insists on 'rrf1' interpretation.

CAPT. HARPER: You will find in here then that the Navy is responsible for clearance and indoctrination or Mr. Jones. we had a big row with them over indoctrination of the Press. we warned them that they weren•~ clearable in our eyes. As I rece.11, we decided to take turns and say "No". ot course,

l7

CONFIDENTIAL

.. ~·

.. ..

. ,•

. :

COfiRIBEN'fIAL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - -at that time there was no AFSA. Now AFSA is in the peculiar position of being an independent body. G-2 of the Anny can•t give the Director orders, etc.

-COL. WYMAN: It should be resolved. CAPT. HARPER: Unfortunately it has grown up that our employees are Army employees. It was only intended originally when

· AFSA was formed that the Army would be the Executive Agent. Administratively that was the intent. Th.rough Civil Service requirements and laws they became Army employeea. Gradually, it has grown up that they are full' Army employees just the same as anybody working for the Quartermaster•s Depot.

. .. .. .. . . . .. . . ··- -- - --: COL. WYMAN: The Navy says, "We alone will indoctrinate our·

· ~- people~" w: __ 1(!Et~JJ_ __ !1_~~-!pt __ ~~~~~it~~r·~!.-~~c~ ~ut __ ~~ ~~ n: accept · 1 ~1r 1ndoc~r na ,~on anu repea~ n accoruance w e "need to know". The Air Force sometimes sends us people who ·are cleared and indoo;trinated; however, ·when ~ey arrive cleared only we must request authority to indoctrinate from Brooks Field. In both cases we proceed to indoctrinate in accordance with the "need to know''.

CAPT. HARPER: You mean you 'c.an• t even give the Air Force· m~ a secliri ty briefing,_

COL. WYMAN: It that is termed "indoctrination", that authority is delegated to General Lynn.

MR. NEFF: There is something wrong there.

CAPT. HARPER: Very definitely.

MR. CLARK: It sounds like USCIB.S needs going over.

· . CAPT. HARPER: I · don' t th ink it stems trom USCIB $ •

COL. HUME: They delegate the authority only tQ Gen. Lynn or to his p'os.ition to indoctrinate •.

CAPT. HARPER: That is in accordance with the 2010 series which indicates that the personnel from the Services should be cleared and indoctrinated when we get· them.

18

CONFIDENTI:A:L

6 ONPIDEN'fIAll

SUBJ: Tr~sc;riiit'.:Of s00'.1)tv. Mtg.- .,, 15 Oct. . ' - - - - -· ... - -,\... - - - - - ~ - - .. - - -

. ' .COL. WIMAN: . In calling this meeting to a close I ·~oulA like to restate m7 position. Th& definition ot "'indoctr.Jnation" as such is something which h:as .needed to be reviewe·d, as far a~ I am concern~d, for AFSA's purposes in its ·relations with the Services;·also USCIB ·S needs to inclu~e th~ Armed Forces security Ageric7 and its people and spell ·out the authoritr ot tpe Director. ·

CAPT. HARPER: ·I think 7ou are right. May I suggest that tor our purposes we.drop.the term "indoctrination" for what we do! I would rath~r agree that it 1~ not an indoctrination. It i~ a secur~~1 bri~fins.

. . . ·COL. WYMAN: The Security Manual will st.ate tha~ we have· two t7pes or tndootrination.. one,,· a securit1 indoctrination. We definitely state what it 1s. Once the man has crypto- . graphic clearance an~ an initial security indoctrination he is considered by /.FSA to be acceptable; from then on he receives progresoive indoctrination for classified informa-tion to which he must have access to. do his work in accordance .with bis "need to know".

CAPT. HARPER: We get ·1nto·trouble when we start talking. in diff~rent languages from the Services or CIA. For that

. reason I suggest we don• t call. this an "indoctr1natiol'1'.'. ' ,, .

COL. WDAN: That. will :be .the tirst· change in the :Manual .•

COL. CONDRON: The ·Air ·Force gets a glossary ot term& whioh .ar$ coordinated with the.various Asencies and services so that we a11· know what the other fellow ls talking about.

. . . COL. WYMAN:" we are including a glossary ".Of term.a. ·.

,

I thank y.ou all tor your attention. I hope you don't feel the time has been ·wasted. ·

I

Col. HU111e ·said to Col. Wyman that A~iral wenger•s need ~or ~e Conf"erence Room no longer existed and we could continue, it necessary.

C.OL. HUME: Do you not want to bring ·up again the point of top-grade indoctrination?

19

CONFIDEN'FIAL

0 CNPIDBff'fIAL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 -Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MR. NEFF: That is where your terminology comes in. I am pretty certain that I rem~mber a report by name in which what you are talking about is what Dr. Kullback calls . "consumer•s indoctrination". That was not intended for the processing people.

COL. WYMAN: doctrinated.

Then all our people would not have to be in-

. !-They are not intended to be.

CAPT. HAHPER: I want full clearance and indoctrination within 02 to take care of the 1rneed to know" business. They are told enough to go about their work. Then when they move to _another activi~y they are told that. They wontt be told to '.forget what they have. learned in the first place.· we

-are-glad to-have them retain that knowledge. As an employee goes up step by step to os-lS, he learns more and more. Certainly a person should not know everything because he is a GS-15~

MAJ. CORCORJtN: When G-2 gives indoctrination to personnel, do they give it like it is do-ne· down at the SchoolT What do they do, go ahead and telr them about operationsT

COL. WYMAN: About operations completely and cod~word; material.

MAJ. CORCORAN: we tell them in essence that 'this is a security Agency and to·keep their mouths shut.

COL. HUME: In G-2, their indoctrination is· threefold and ~-s comparable to· COMSEC indoctrination, to COMINT indoctrina-tion, and to administrative securit7 indoctrination. The latter is our initia.l securit7 indoctr1na~1on.

··MAJ. CORCORAN: ours says it a:lot more simply. They are given a brief indoctrination. If they need to know more later on, as Capt. Harper said, they are told what they will need to know for that particular project. That is what we give them down there.

COL. WYMAN: ASA. considers your indoctrination simply as a security briefing. To them, it is not an indoctrination i~ the sense that we ~se it progressively later on.

20

EONFIDEN'FIAL

C 0Nl''I BEN'f IAL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. 15 Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAPT. HARPER: That is. why I think thid is a better term for 16 to use and for the 05 ·School. When they come to 02, 03, 04, 12, or 17,· they have to have full security briefinG• Indoctrination in their particular work will be given by their supervisors who know how much they have the "need to know".

COL. WYMAN: The security briefing is the initial security indoctrination.

MR. CLARK: May I raise this question? This Secretary of Defense Directive of 5 June, is that specifically for cryptographic cle~rance?

COL. WYMAN: Yes·. The standard for cryptographic clearance put down there are practically ident:bal with the basic USCIB standards. It is the 'same thing as 8R 380-160-10 and the service similar regulations.

MR. NEFF: The Army Regulations are written deliberately. that way?

MR. CLARK: We ~now of the investigations that are to .be carried out, that the· criteria to be met by the personnel are identi~~l fo~ clearing an individual for either COMINT or COMSEC?

Iv11. CLARK: I can cite an instance where a Service inter-preted the ~riteria differ~ntly. The Air Force has a school at Scott Air Force Base where·they have cryptographic operations. The Army has onA at Camp Gordon. A lot of the Service personnel within them have interim cr~tographic clearance. Never to my knowledge has an individual accepted bn:an interim c.learance by the Signal Corps .faila d to pass a full clearance. About one out of every one hundred at Scott Air Force Besa would fail to pass the final test and they follow exactly the same rules.

COL. WYMAN: Thlt is possible.

Iiffi. CLARK: There are bound to be differences in interpreta-tion. The one of the Services which is more strict to begin with is bound to be more strict than the other finally. We wouldn't get the same end result out of the two situations.

21

CONFIDEN'FIAL

•

C 02FFI DEIN'fI AL

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - - ·- - -MR. NEFF: I claim regardless that you have to have one hundred per ~ent or the whole thing falls down.. you say, for example, that the Air Force insists on determining whether an Air Force officer is cleared or not. All you do is to review it. I claim there is a weakness in that the other Agencies review the clearance of people that are sent to them.

COL. WYMAN: we do not review all clearances as a matter of courtesy but we do recµ ire personal History statements from all of them. These we review and if they indicate the necessity for reviewing the record, we do. •

MR. NEFF: You assume that the Services sw that PHS, tooT

COL. WYMAN: It is possible that they have waived certSin items. This must be taken into consideration. Perhaps we do not want to waive the same item.

MR. NEFF: If one activity says that the person is cleared, the second activity accepts the statement?

COL. WYMAN: Not alwaya. For example, ASA has a stamp which they put in an upper corner of a PHS sent to us for review. That stamp means th.et there is something in the rean•s case which needs waiving. If we want the man, we sa1 "Yes" in the blank provided. If we do not, we sa7 "No". If our answer is "No", ASA moves the individual concerned. We do not have this arrangement with the other two services.

COL. COHDRON: The 5 June agreement !s in operati.on now?

MR. CLARK: It is subject to interpretation •

• I

MR. NEFF: Tha·t doesn't preclude, because of the intelligence · aspects, that other things will· govern. For the ASA;!Pro-cessing Activity, the same investigative standards and the same evaluation of investigative reports will ~pply whether or not they are going to be working at ASA on the cryptographic or the intelligence end. That is ·a joint thing on the crypto-graphic end. The area of contention is where you have the different services givins different interpretations ~n the

. intelligence end.

22

CONFIDENTIAL

.~... . .. .. ....

GONPIBBN'f IAfl .

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. lS· Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -MAJ.· CORCORAN: Is the clearance given in the Air Force tor

·assignment to.AFSS equivalent to ASA's or is it like G-2's?

COL. WYMAI: It is probablJ much the same as ours here. You signed an oath temporar117, there, when you were brought into this business?.

MAJ. CORCORAN: When I came in from th~ Air Force?

COL. WYMAN: Here, we had to wait for authorit7 to indoctrinate JOU~

MAJ. CORCORAN: We wonder~d how JOU indoctrinate.·

COL. W!MAN: That is what we ott•n wonder with regard to the· Air Force· and Hav1, how much indoctrination has been gi~en bJ the Service betore a man arrives here. . · .

MR.CLARK: When an offictsr is sent to· 7ou tor assignment to ·AFSA and the service indicates that the individual has been cleared, is that clearance accepted without re-investigation? . . . COL. WYMAN: Yea, 1r·there·has not been a break ot 18 months. we have to tallow rules on that.

MR· •. CL.ARK: Personnel aupposedlJ are cieared in accordance with service standa~s.·

COL. ·WYMAN: . w, are to review them a~ oertit1 them. MR. CLARK: We don•t put the~ down in the Training School?

COL. WIMAN: It ~ know about their clearance, we don•t put them in the 'l'raini'ng school.

The purpose or this meeting has bean mat. We all teal that there is a need for a review or USCIB S. Second, 1ou,Capt. Harper, believe that the indoctrination as we are now con-ducting it is in the best interests o~ 1our operations and within the requirements ot USCIB as now written. Third, we all teal that the term "1ndoctrination" is perhaps misused. and that we should term our initial seourit1 indoctrination as a "securi tJ briefing" instead. we all understand that a m1litar1 person cleared will possiblJ have some similar briefing when he comas in the service but that further in-doctrination should be developed within the Agenc1.

23

CONFIDENt'IAL

.p

COlJFI BEIN':PiltL

SUBJ: TransC!'ipt of SEC Div. Mtg. - lS Oct. - - ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -MR. CLARK: Along that line of thinking would you then report regularly only those people that you determined to have been fully indoctrinated?

COL. '\oM'.IAN: Not necessarily.

MR. MEFF: There has to be a need t·o get fully ·indoctrinated if they work in JI.FSA.. !

CAPT. HARPER: They want the names of people employed here2

COL. WYMAN: NOt we simply send them the number, we don•t send the names··· to anybody. . · .

CAPT.· HARPER:· · We were supposed to send the ·corrections every year tG> the FBI. ASA dld. we wanted to do that 11 The FBI d1dn•t search their files in those days. They said that they c-ouldn' t do that but if anything came up, for . instance, Ziswoski out in Chicago turned out to be a member of a front organi~ation, the1 would look at the list end see if th~ name Ziswoski was on the list •. If it was, they would so inform us. They couldn't take the listing and go through the entire file on every name. I never heard of the effects of it. We did do it. We miait have some individual tallts .oh these subjects.

COL. WYMAN: My purpose in having you all here was to determine how many people ~.n ee.ch Staff Divi~ion and Office would come under that top-level indoctrination. You state that as far as you, C&pt. Harper, are concerned, there . would be only three or four.

CAPT. HARPER; Take 12. for ex~~ple. Youngsters from 12 come around all the time asking for information from this person or that person who makes up the papers. They don•t come to me. If I weren•t sure that every one was fullJ cleared and securit1 indoctrinated, I would have to issue an order that no~ody wearing a 12 badge, with certain ex-ceptions, would be allowed in the operating spaces •. The same thing would be true of 16. ·

MR. NEFF: I think it was not intended that any individual ln an1 cryptoGraphic agency receive this formal indoctrina-t'ion.

24.

CONFIDENTIAL

•I I' ~ I I

:;

~ ~ I

,1

' I'

f

'!

00NFII>EN'f!itL I •

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CAP!'. HARP~R: G-2's indoctrination is bnsed ·on that. I cnn see reasons for. G-2, ON!, CIA, ID, and the Air Force Intelli-gence ·consumer~ getting fuller indoctrination than the vast majorit~ of our people do. They got the Re,ITle kind of indoc-trinatlon. as the people in 25 get. I can understand that reason. I think that is an internal matter.

. . MR. NEFF: Exactly. That should be the extent of the security · briefing as we are now calling it.

CAPT. HARPER: I meant more than that. I meant more than a security briefing. I meant the knowledge of ~.rhat this means, on how it is arrived at ~n order thnt they can evaluete it properly as' intelligence information.

DR. KULLBACK: Also the circumstances under which they· could use 1~ operational~y, ~hat they have to know.

COL. WYMAN: In our Manual, you will find reference to this type (consumer) of people. There are certain badges that they get.

CAPT. HARPER: When they show the proper badge, we assume they are fully cleared.

MR. CLAHK: I have one point in connection with the ·re-investigation. I don't know how many people here have been through this experience which I had about six.months lfgo. I found the Agency had re-investigated me. They called me . over withput e.ny knowledge on my part to sign all the various and sundry oaths. It was my experience and that of several other people that the gen~ral wording of these oaths is no longer directly applicable to persormel who are being re-investigated but is fundeJ11.entally applicable to personnel being indoctrinated for the first time.

-COL. 'WIMAN: It should be more or less a. reminder. We investigate every three y~ars and only to the extent that your former clearance doesn•t meet the current requirements.

MR. .CL Jllllc;: The actual wording that I had to sign wasn' t applicab~~ to me. It didn't make any sense. It WRsnit ~h- I had to sign them bece.use 16 said th1:1.t I had to sieP

them. ·

COL. WYMAN: We can c henge that.

CONFiilEN'FIAL

.. 0 O?f.F'IBEN'HAll

SUBJ: Transcript of SEC Div. Mtg. ~ 15.oct. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. CLARK: I read about a dozen things •

. C.OL. WYMAN: That is a general reminder. It is not too good and is being revis~d.

MR. CLARK: I raise the point for the sake of looking into it.

CAP.I'. HARPER: I don•t believe the statute of limitations has anyth 1.ng to do with 1 t m y more •

COL. HUMF.: The second oath, the renewal oath, is only a matter of record •. Each individual on the street is.obligated to ·the laws of the United States whether he signed an oath or not.

· · ·COL. WYMAN: public Law .513 would take care of that.·.

MR. NEFF: we probabl7 don• t need the oath.

CAPT. HAPJ'ER: I think it is a good thing to have. ·That is , all it ever did do even b~fore PL 513.

LT. JOHNSON: Suppo'se. a person T"efused to take the oa.th?

CAPT. HARPER: suppose he was a ~usker?

LT. JOHNSON: We bad· one case last year.

COL.· WYMAN: The gentleman was a Jehovah• s Witness and we asked him to "affirm".

MR. CLARK: Capt. Harper, in 'the Navy y-ou had an oath which I signed and which I may no longer live up to. When I worked for the Nav1 in 193.5 and 1936 and was released to go back to the Army I signed certain oaths never under any circumstances to reveal the Nav7•s success to the A"ZWm'Y· Now this !being a joint organization, I can no longer say I- won•t do that. ·

CAPT. HARPER: Your oath still applies. You can tell the Army man what 1 t was and he can tell the Navy man.

26

CONFIDENTIAL

G ONPI DE1H'l'I AlJ

SUDJ: Transcz•ipt of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 Oct. - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COL •. WYMAN: I appreciate your coreinti over hore. I hoped I would hear more from. Dr. KullbRck. I beliove you, Dr. KUll-back, have a lot of difficulty in your shop in deciding when to do what in the way of indoctrination or how mu.ch to do.

DR. KULLEACK: · The difficulty is in the question of inter-preting indoctrination rather than security requirements. The people should be cleared. They don• t have "need to know" t..1i.e COMINT activities. The contractors haven• t eny "need to know". •

CAPT. HARPER: In general you have to trust that they won•t go e.nd tell what they- have seen or heard. Men·y times these people (contractors.) are not cleared. They walk through the halls under escort to see the Director, the Chief of 17, or the Contracting.Officer. That is nll right. Those people aren•t .going to sit down nnd tell them all of their business.·

COL. WYMAN: ne.ny times t'hey come in too without any check by Security at all. We are trying to 6Ct that under control.

COL. HUME: There should be a stronger recommendation from the requesting Office or Division concerning an incoming visitor, contractual or not. The Office itself should ·require even stronger stand~rds than we do and all visitors who come in under this category should meet those standards. Sor.'la visitors of this nature come into AFS/. so fast that there is no time to dotermino their aualifioations for access to classified matter. There should be some statement

.coming from the Division or Office concerned; they should not just throw the qµ.estion up in the air and leave it fo:r Security to decide. They mould tell us exactly- what those people are·to do, wh.J they- are here, to what degree they should be cleared, and in what capacity they are going to be entered in our oper.ationa.l spaces.

DR. KULLBACK: Either they are broug..~t in or they are not brought in. Before any classified 1nforraat1on is made avail-able to anybody you cm rest assured the people concerned know about it because they are well aware of the irriplic~tions of Public LRW 513.

27

CONFIDENTIAL

" G ON.FI DrHffIAfJ

SUBJ: Transcr:t.pt of SEC Div. Mtg. - 15 O~t. - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -CAPT. H.ARPEn: There was one insts.nce when I w0.s over there when so1nebody- wasn• t cleared. Tre contrP.ctinB offi.cer stated thflt he we.s. It .was not true in fact.

DR. KULLBACK: Ey the same token tf we Get informB.tion from. the contracting. of,'ficer that an individual 1.s clea?".ed, we act on the assumption that that is a valid sta~ement.

I •

COL. HUME: 1 It should also s~ate to what degree, A few little facts like that wo~ld help us tremendously.

. .

CAPT. HARPER: The contractors are cleared only for Con-fidential information. ·

DR. KULLBACK:. One other pos~ibility would be to provide a public reception room which·is not within the confines of AFSA into which these people could be brought so that you could talk with them.

CAPT. HARPER: Get the contrs.ct1Ilg off:t.cer to tell you. you should. no.t depend on an :!.ndi,ridu:il in 03 to tell you when somebody is cleared when he visits here. . . COL. WYMAN: Only Secnri ty should check clearanc~ status·; Office Chiefs should tell.us when vi.sitars are coming· and what c.learance, if any, is required. . ·

DR. KULLEACK: Generally the peopls who vi.sit us are the people with whom we are doing business. The1 have been cleared. Mm y times somebody comes to the pentagon looking for business." Somebody in the Signal Corps says, "Why don•t you go and try AFSA? They do research." Then the first

·thing you know you have somebody knocking at the gate. A few business people will approach you, people who are connected with atomic energy and with Government offices security-wise. /

COL. HUME: There has to be a check. Just as Capt. Harper said that he can•t take a man•s word for it, neither can the Security Control· Division.

CAPT. HARPER: In the case which Dr. Kullback points out, of somebody coming here because he was sent out to see nr. Kull back or 'Mr. ningley- about b~i.siness, I never worried

28

CONFIDENTIAL

00NPIDEIN'l'IAE.

SUBJ: Transcri'pt ot SEC D:lv. Mtg. - 1.5 Oct. . - - ~ - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - -about those in the slightest.. I think that Dr. Kullback

· .and Mr •. Dingl~J: are c·apable or looking out tor> AFSA' s sec~r1t7 concerns. The7 don•t know who the people are in the. first place. Ma7be theJ are cleared for some other

·business. .. . .

COL. WYMAN: You can talk about a lot of business without .ever getting into class1f1ed·matters or into what the Agenc7 does or an7th1~ ot the.sort.

DR •. KULLBACK: If we_had·some sort of public reception room, 1-t would help.

COL. WYMAN: we. will try tQ get that •.

·'.CAPT. HARPERr I'don•t know whether you get so much ot ~t now. In 19.51 we had two or three a day looking tor business.

At this time it was felt that enough discussion had been · held. Col. WJlTlan asked to see c·ol. Condron and Capt. Harper afte~ the meeting adjourned.

.:;

29

CONFIDENTIAL